M
miguel
Guest
If he wants to count his fingers, fine. If he doesn’t want to be seen counting his fingers, he can use his memory. Just as long as 2+2=4.
- Status
L
Leela
Guest
I don’t understand how someone can simultaneously be a Christian and not be a Christian. It seems like it should be a straightforward question. I certainly would never call myself a Christian since I don’t even believe in God.Indeed.
In one sense, yes.
In the other sense, my Church is very clear that once you’re baptized you’re a Christian; perhaps that’s why you were attracted to the CAF–your baptism gave you a share in the “common priesthood of all believers”.
L
Leela
Guest
You may find his arguments insulting, but that is not his intention. What seems to be changing, though, is the taboo about asking people why they believe what they believe. I can see how that would make you uncomfortable since it has long been considered to be in bad taste to question religious beliefs, but I don’t think it is out of line. Why should religious beliefs get a free pass?
And who ever called the Pope “stupid”? That sounds made up.
M
miguel
Guest
To some folks, faith has no more consequence than what shoes to wear. Others regard it as the way things really are. And they want their kids to live in reality too.:dancing:
I know a Mother who’s about 40 yrs. old now, & attends a Baptist Church on Christmas & Easter. She told me, when her first child was born, that she would not bring him up in ANY faith, that he should be able to choose which faith he wanted to follow…if any… when he was older. I, innocentlyasked her if she felt the same way about schooling. Would she let him decide which school he would attend…IF ANY…when he was older.
She had no answer. Now, he is 13 yrs. old & is taken to the Baptist Church on Christmas & Easter. He has no where to turn when things are not good in his life. He has no compass, he has no God. It is a pitiful thing to see.
M
miguel
Guest
L
Leela
Guest
Speaking at a university in Spain, he said: “I wonder on what basis anyone can say condoms make Aids worse. The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim. If people take his words seriously he will be responsible for the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions of people.”
I would think the answer is just “ignorant.” The man is obviously not stupid, but very wrong about the spread of AIDS. I can understand Dawkin’s upset. There are human lives at stake. And to think that people around here say that Dawkins talks about things that are outside his area of expertise…
M
miguel
Guest
There are human lives at stake. And that is the Pope’s concern. I think the Pope’s point was valid purely from the probability of failure of condoms. Let’s say the failure rate of condoms is 5%. And let’s limit the discussion to a married couple, one of the spouses with HIV. Married couples have sex frequently. And let’s say this couple always uses a condom. The 5% failure rate means that 5 out of 100 encounters HIV will be transmitted. The most rudimentary probability analysis (high school level) says that HIV will be transmitted from the spouse with HIV to the other spouse. There are alot of orphans in Africa because of this insanity.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Having spent some time volunteering in an orphanage in nearly suffocatingly Catholic rural Mexico in my youth, I can’t for the life of me understand how someone can claim that a four year old cannot be a believer just because spoiled American children are raised to think that the world revolves around them from the word “go”. As others have mentioned, a young child being a Christian or raised as one does not imply that they have anything other than a child’s understanding of what that might mean, but so what? A child with a strong foundation in what being Christian means will at least grow to understand the value of faith even if at some point in their life as adults they decide not to practice it (a strange situation to some, but not impossible; I have never met a Russian who would dispute the central place of the Orthodox faith in their country, even though most of my acquaintences are of the age to have been raised as atheists, and have remained as such).
In recognizing that children more often than not adopt their parents’ outlook in religious matters (at least until they become teenagers and instantly know everything), we are essentially talking about religion as a cultural trait. Is it wrong to teach your child that they belong to a religion that is the backbone of your life and the life of your community? That’s not the message I observed in Mexico (where I was first really exposed to Catholicism), and it’s certainly not one that I agree with either. It’s not a matter of Christianity being more socially advantageous (as there are many places in the world where people maintain their Christianity at their own peril), but of the religion having an elevated place in the community such that it is placed before and above the other things that you might teach your children. These comparisons in this thread about drugs or math don’t really fit, if you consider it that way.
It is because we in the West by and large do not view religion in that way that people start talking about the child’s “will” as being of primary importance. It’s not. Sorry, kids. Time was there was some formative period before which you would never have been allowed to have your opinion considered in any domain. Now it seems that things have swung the other way for some people, and now we must consider a child as a fully participatory member of society, with the intellect needed to make informed decisions on religious matters. I don’t buy it. Children can no more make fully-informed decisions to reject or resist God than they can to embrace Him. Whether their Catholic or atheist, the parents always end up making this decision for them and then hoping that they will grow in their faith as time goes on. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn’t.
In recognizing that children more often than not adopt their parents’ outlook in religious matters (at least until they become teenagers and instantly know everything), we are essentially talking about religion as a cultural trait. Is it wrong to teach your child that they belong to a religion that is the backbone of your life and the life of your community? That’s not the message I observed in Mexico (where I was first really exposed to Catholicism), and it’s certainly not one that I agree with either. It’s not a matter of Christianity being more socially advantageous (as there are many places in the world where people maintain their Christianity at their own peril), but of the religion having an elevated place in the community such that it is placed before and above the other things that you might teach your children. These comparisons in this thread about drugs or math don’t really fit, if you consider it that way.
It is because we in the West by and large do not view religion in that way that people start talking about the child’s “will” as being of primary importance. It’s not. Sorry, kids. Time was there was some formative period before which you would never have been allowed to have your opinion considered in any domain. Now it seems that things have swung the other way for some people, and now we must consider a child as a fully participatory member of society, with the intellect needed to make informed decisions on religious matters. I don’t buy it. Children can no more make fully-informed decisions to reject or resist God than they can to embrace Him. Whether their Catholic or atheist, the parents always end up making this decision for them and then hoping that they will grow in their faith as time goes on. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn’t.
M
matahari
Guest
Atheists draw their oxygen from believers and their faith. If you ask an atheist what they believe they can’t tell you - they can only tell you what they don’t believe which is likely to be what You do believe. It’s almost as bad as an unwelcome conversation with a J.W. at your front door. You know what they’re going to say - but you stand there anyhow while they drone on… It should be illegal to bore people with repetitious junk.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, like a lot of Catholic theology, it’s a both/and concept.
Christianity is way too deep and complex (yet, it’s also simple!! both/and) to be summed up in a sentence.
Certainly, you are correct to not call yourself a Christian.
Yet, if you were baptized you are, whether you like it or not, indelibly marked for Christ.
E
Earnest_Bunbury
Guest
Christianity is identified by belief as well as a system of morality. That system of moral teaching is what is handed down. Dawkins rejects the morality so what is left to him is only belief. The Christian child is Christian due to the moral system adhered to in the home and through this comes to know the Christ from which and in which that morality is personified.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t think it was ever “taboo” to question our religious beliefs–the writings of Sts. Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, etc etc etc testify to that. Heck, even the Gospels portray Jesus in discussion with Jews about religious beliefs.
What may have been considered in bad taste is to discuss religion, politics, sex with acquaintances. Dawkins has done nothing to change that. It’s *still *bad form for you to sit down next to a stranger on a bus and say, “Hey! You look like you’re Amish. Why do you believe that it’s good to wear clothes like that? I’ve never read that in the Bible!”
L
Leela
Guest
Are you aware of any immoral behavior on Dawkin’s part?
1
1holycatholic
Guest
As a matter of public record: serial polygamy.
E
Earnest_Bunbury
Guest
This is absolutely none of our business, nor is it germane to the discussion. To review:
Now:
Earnest Bunbury:
This is what makes a child a beginning Christian! Later:
Earnest Bunbury:
This is what makes a child a believing Christian.
Since Dawkins rejects any objective system of moral teaching, he only sees the religious belief system that is, in his thought, incapable of being accepted by a 4 year old. But that 4 year old CAN accept the beginnings and basics of the Christian morality system that is also part of that belief. My 3 year old accepted “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I bet you even accept that! If you don’t, no one has yet “done unto you” what you didn’t like!
Jesus said:
Believe the truth of the morality, even if it is difficult to do. Christians who can’t always live up to the ideal doesn’t make Christ wrong.
M
miguel
Guest
This is where thinking critically, including mathematically, is crucial.
L
Leela
Guest
Dawkins does not reject objective basis for morality. In fact, as an evolutionary biologist he has a lot to say on on the matter.
Also, “do unto others…” is far from uniquely Christian. Virtually ever society has articulated some version of the Golden Rule. It is a very rational approach to morality that requires no special revelation. Why would anyone ever take me seriously if I do to them what I say I don’t want done to me? Dawkins and everyone else understands that logic.
The truth of any moral proposition does not constitute evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead or born of a virgin or sent by his father (who is also himself) do die for the sins of others and impress himself enough with this act to atone all of humanity with himself
.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html
Richard Dawkins:
Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn’t surprise me).
Code:
But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment.What Dawkins has to say is nonsense.
L
Leela
Guest
1
1holycatholic
Guest
What part of Dawkins’ statement: “make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility” don’t you understand?
- Status